To the editor:
In a letter in your Aug. 31 issue, a reader calls people against war “naive.” I completely disagree. It is people who think war is so wonderful, glorious and necessary who are “naive.” War only leads to more war. For thousands of years, “leaders” have gotten men to die so the “leaders” can get more power and wealth. People who believe the constant TV commercial lies cast as “reasons” for this attack on Iraq are those that are “naive.”
If this reader thinks war, torture, bombing and killing are so wonderful, what is he doing in Santa Monica? They need more soldiers to go die in Iraq, so Halliburton and friends can make more money, building up our deficit so they can make their war profits. That is what this war is about: no weapons of mass destruction, no links to Al Queda or 9/11, Iraq was no threat to our nation – the war is a way for these companies to make money; the biggest industry in the U.S. – War. This is not a “War on Terror,” it is a war “creating terror.” The War on Terror is about as successful as the War on Drugs. I’m sure this person is one who compares our invasion of Iraq to WW II, the Civil War, the Trojan War and who knows what other wars, but this was just an invasion for profit. Anti-war people are not “naive” – they are able to look realistically beyond the sloganeering and see utter futility.
The writer says Sheehan is disgracing her son? Sending our children off to die based on lies, sending them off without proper equipment and food, cutting pay and benefits, not allowing funerals and caskets to be seen – these are the disgraces to our soldiers. The bravest soldiers are those who are now asking for conscientious objector status, as they come to understand the horror we have unleashed in Iraq. Soldiers like Kevin Benderman, who killed people in the first Iraq war (and was decorated for it), killed people in the present Iraq war and one day bombed a building, out walked a young girl, (who he had just bombed), with her arm hanging by threads of her body. He stared deeply into her eyes and realized he could never kill again. Now he is sitting in jail, stripped of all honor, because he will no longer kill. No longer “naive.”
And Cindy Sheehan dares ask, “What was the Noble Cause my son died for?” No answer comes from our “leader” because there is none, just profits from death. But to be anti-war, anti-killing, anti-torturing in the U.S. is apparently Un-American. The Bush administration has committed our troops and finances to this Iraq war while cutting funds for much needed infrastructure here at home, such as the levees in the south.
The natural disaster of Katrina was bad enough, but the avoidable floods are killing hundreds of people – due to Bush budget cuts for flood control. Soon the PR campaign will be Bush hugging black people, to show how much he cares.
If to be against killing is “naive,” well, I guess I must be “naive.” I suppose this person thinks Christ, Ghandi, M. L. King and all other peace lovers are “naive.” I’ll take a “peace president” over a “war president” any day; call me “naive.” If being conservative means bashing mothers mourning their dead children and lusting after war and death, I’ll be a liberal any day.
By the way, the anti-Cindy Sheehan, war loving letter was printed in what the letter writer calls the “Liberal Media.”
Message From Zev
To the People of L.A. County
The magnitude of the Gulf Coast catastrophe in the wake of Hurricane Katrina staggers the imagination. Casualty estimates have risen into the thousands, while property damage will likely run into many billions. This is a time for all of us to stand together and do our part to support the relief efforts and assist the survivors of this unprecedented human tragedy.
Financial donations, more than food or supplies, are what’s called for. For a list of recognized charities and agencies in need of your help, please click Network For Good hurricane relief.
County Supervisor, Third District
OPA responds to City report
To Mayor O’Connor, Council Members and Planning Commissioners:
While we will soon provide you with more extensive feedback on the “Opportunities and Challenges Report,” we’d like for now to share with you our first thoughts on this crucial document.
In Section 2, page 9 under the header “Theme #4,” the report notes that popular sentiment is that “existing height limits should be maintained.”
We disagree. We were at many of the public meetings in the first phase of the General Plan update, including the large workshop at JAMS, and we clearly recall that what the people want preserved is existing heights and densities, not existing height limits. Surely residents did not look at a 3-D zoning map and decide that buildings built to the maximum allowable height and mass, including various density bonuses, was what they wished to be maintained. Rather, they want their city to look and feel and function not much differently than it does now.
We see clear evidence of this desire when we ask our membership about their vision for the future of Main Street. Section 1, page 11 of the report asks, “Are additional mixed-use or larger projects appropriate along Main Street, or should the small-scale retail orientation of the street be preserved?” Our neighbors are almost unanimous in their passion for the latter option and wish to preserve the current scale and neighborhood serving character of Main Street, as most are appalled by the new, large developments being constructed on the south and north ends of the street.
Clearly, what Ocean Park residents desire for Main Street is the maintenance of current heights and densities and not the perpetuation of current height limits which allow for these behemoth projects.
Likewise, we like the existing heights, rather than the current height limits, along Pico Boulevard between the ocean and Lincoln Boulevard and along Lincoln between Pico and the Venice border. We’d prefer that these stretches of Pico and Lincoln, like Main Street, serve as low-scale, neighborhood oriented specialty commercial corridors; they should be neighborhood social spaces with shops, services and small scale entertainment which further enhance the walkability of our neighborhood. Specifically, we do not want anything like the Viceroy Hotel on our borders: large, traffic congesting developments which serve tourists and not locals and generate profits for out-of-town investors rather than for local ownership.
Thank you for your attention to our preliminary thoughts. We look forward to a further dialogue with you on these matters.
Co-chair of the Ocean Park Association’s Sustainable Neighborhood Committee.
To the editor:
I think that our economic problems would all be solved if we could convince President Bush to invade the United States of America.
Art CheslukSanta Monica